The Fijian government is engaged in delicate negotiations regarding a confidential agreement with Chief Justice Salesi Temo, who is under scrutiny for serious corruption allegations stemming from a Commission of Inquiry (COI) conducted in the previous year. This inquiry, overseen by Australian Judge David Ashton-Lewis, implicated Temo and ten others, including various government officials and legal professionals, for allegedly lying under oath and obstructing justice.
In light of these allegations, public prosecutors have recently dismissed all 12 related police investigations due to insufficient evidence. Temo’s attorney, Isireli Fa, has slammed the COI’s conclusions as “defamatory and baseless.” He stated that the discussions on settlement aim to reduce conflict between different government branches rather than focusing on financial compensation. Fa highlighted the critical need to uphold the integrity of both the Judiciary and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).
The inquiry also scrutinized Barbara Malimali, the former head of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). Judge Ashton-Lewis characterized Malimali as “universally corrupt,” suggesting she was influenced by unscrupulous government officials. Her position underwent turmoil, leading to her suspension and the eventual rescinding of her original appointment. Even though she was cleared of allegations related to abuse of office, the inquiry’s comments have severely impacted her reputation.
The proceedings of the COI have prompted the JSC to seek a judicial review in the Suva High Court, with Fa asserting that the Commission’s findings and the resultant damage to reputations are disputed. He contended that the inquiry failed to observe the principles of natural justice, notably in failing to notify individuals in advance of any findings that could harm their reputations.
While the Fijian government attempts to mediate these disputes, it has faced widespread criticism. The Fiji Labour Party has vigorously opposed any potential private settlement, criticizing the confidentiality aspect as “repugnant.”
The repercussions of this inquiry highlight the ongoing struggles within Fiji’s political and judicial realms as the nation contends with issues of accountability and reform. Although a confidential agreement could provide a means to avoid further legal battles, it raises important questions regarding transparency and public confidence in the judicial system. This situation emphasizes the need for accountability measures while also striving for stability within Fiji’s governance.